Outrageous settlement yet again!

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

typical :shk: sending a girl out to do what the manly TPD couldn't or daren't do

Actually, I agree with you on this part. The guys that became murderers were already facing charges, and already well-known to police. There wasn't much need to use this girl. Also, the girl was a casual user, a typical partying college student. They told her she was facing jail time, but her parents would have easily gotten that knocked down to something less. In all likelihood she was more fearful of facing her parents.

So yes, the TPD did something they didn't even need to do, and she died as a result.

But, $2M??????

She was an adult, she took a calculated risk, she ignored her instructions, she got killed, the killers were caught, they were convicted, they are in jail.

Why the money?

reply to post by Tw0Sides


We are not authorized to trade jail time for helping us, only the PA can authorize that, and since they are the ultimate authority when it comes to prosecution and plea bargains, thats in their court not ours.

Secondly, we arent the ones forcing people to do drugs - Thats their personal choice and until drugs (or some drugs) become legal to possess and use, its agsint the law, regardless of personal opinions. If you dont like it, or others for that matter, do what some other citiy / state residents have done - get off your butts, put together legislation, get it on the ballott, and vote.

Its not up to the PA to accept a plea deal in these cases, its up to the person who is charged with the crime. In this case the female agreed to cooperate with law enforcement, and in the process decided to ignore the game plan and get in a car with 2 strangers.

This is not the fault of the police or the city, and the family should not be able to sue at all.

As far as knowing the dangers and not caring about informants, again you are wrong. We are responsible for the people in situations like this. Hence the game plan and specifric instructions on where she must be and to not deviate from that plan. The moment she left the parameters, she sealed her own fate.

Until all the info comes out, some things to think about -
* - What if she asked the 2 people to get her out of there?
* - What if she told the 2 guys she was an informant and wanted help getting out of there in exchange for telling them they were being set up.
* - What if they knew she was an informant based on her open mouth and facebook / friends / anyone within earshot? Just because she didnt know them doesnt mean they didnt know her. I ahve had people deny they knew someone, only to find out they did know the person and had in fact bought drugs off of them / same source before.

Controlled buys are controlled for a reason. Im not going to go into detail but had she stuck with the plan, she would most likely still be alive.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Until all the info comes out, some things to think about -
* - What if she asked the 2 people to get her out of there?
* - What if she told the 2 guys she was an informant and wanted help getting out of there in exchange for telling them they were being set up.
* - What if they knew she was an informant based on her open mouth and facebook / friends / anyone within earshot? Just because she didnt know them doesnt mean they didnt know her. I ahve had people deny they knew someone, only to find out they did know the person and had in fact bought drugs off of them / same source before.

Controlled buys are controlled for a reason. Im not going to go into detail but had she stuck with the plan, she would most likely still be alive.

I entirely agree.

All the more reason it would have been worthwhile for the city to stand its ground and refuse to settle, and be willing to go to a trial. A settlement is just as bad as a judgement when it comes to the reputation of the police and the city. The story has already dragged on for 2 years, they didn't save themselves any heartache by settling.

But, if they had chosen to fight, the girl's reputation would have been on the line, and the girl's past record, her criminal charges, her mistakes, and any plausible motivations for deviating from the plan would have all come out. A trial only hurts the girl's family, it doesn't hurt the city, so why didn't they play hardball? Any decent attorney should have been prepared to play hardball and put the girl on trial. I'm not going to call her a victim, even though she was a murder victim, she was also a willing participant, and a full-grown adult making her own decisions both before and during the operation.

I can't for the life of me imagine why an attorney would instruct a city to take a $2.6M settlement when all of the damaging facts of the case are already out in the open, and a trial would likely open up the other side of the story. The family probably would have settled for 10% of that figure rather than have their daughter's reputation raked over the coals.

reply to post by getreadyalready


The family would not have bee hurt. Embarrassed most likely but not hurt. People need to quit blaming the government / police for the poor choices of their kids. The family should be the one to deal with the problem on their own, and not subsidized by a payout.

As far as a lawyer instructing the city, at that level its the other way around. The attorneys can advise all they want, put its up to the city council to take a vote on what they want to do - stand their ground or payout.

This entire conclusion is the result of the city council, and the more cities payout to avoid "publicity" the more millionaires we are going to have who dont even come close to deserving it.

I get and understand the fact she is dead. However, again thats her fault. If the parents want a payout, then they should file a claim with their insurance company.

I dont know how many more times I can say tort reform. Secondly, the lawsuit never should have been allowed. If it was determined law enforcement is not at fault there should be a civil immunity shield in place.

Just wanted to add something odd that I've learned.

According to Florida Law, it is difficult, almost impossible to sue a City, but certain circumstances do qualify. If a City is sued, there is a $200,000 cap on what the city has to pay. Everything after the $200k falls to the State to pay out of taxpayer money. Now, before the state can pay anything, there has to be a legislative bill to pay the dues. Apparently about 40 such bills come before the Legislature each year, and only a handful get paid.

So, the city was at liberty to settle for any amount. $2.6M was what they settled for, but it could have been $200M, who cares, because they only have to pay the first $200k. So that makes no sense! Then, no matter how legitimate the settlement is, there is no requirement for the state to pay it in any time period. This could take decades before the legislature authorizes the payment. That is also ludicrous.

The whole dam thing from start to finish is unbelievable!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Im not quite sure how that law is even constitutional since it appears to restrict / eliminate redress of grievances.

I do know that sometime back a Florida company was sued (if I remember right) and an outrageous fine was levied to the tune of like 400 million dollars. The law was changed to prevent award amounts that would exceed the value of the business.

Im not sure if that law also applies to cities